Manuel Noriega Sues Activision Over Call of Duty 83
mrspoonsi sends this BBC report:
Manuel Noriega, the former dictator of Panama, is suing Call of Duty's video games publisher. The ex-military ruler is seeking lost profits and damages after a character based on him featured in Activision's 2012 title Black Ops II. The 80-year-old is currently serving a jail sentence in Panama for crimes committed during his time in power, including the murder of critics. One lawyer said this was the latest in a growing trend of such lawsuits. "In the U.S., individuals have what's called the right to publicity, which gives them control over how their person is depicted in commerce including video games," explained Jas Purewal, an interactive entertainment lawyer. "There's also been a very well-known action by a whole series of college athletes against Electronic Arts, and the American band No Doubt took action against Activision over this issue among other cases. "It all focuses upon the American legal ability for an individual to be only depicted with their permission, which in practice means payment of a fee. "But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision."
Go ahead and pay him the RIAA way (Score:4, Funny)
Send him truckloads of unsold "Panama" single cassettes.
Questionable? (Score:1, Informative)
Why is that? Do you think that US laws only protect US citizens? I don't think so, lest it would be legal to rob and murder tourists.
Activision, as US company, committed the act. They are bound by US laws. Therefore the law applies.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between civil and criminal law.
Re: (Score:3)
COD present a pretty accurate portrayal of that monster. So not libel or slander.
Re: (Score:3)
He doesn't want it removed, or reparations for damage to his reputation, He just wants to be paid for the too accurate representation of him. If EA had just mad it some random jungle military guy, they'd have been fine.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, you think EA should switch the character to depict George Bush?
Re: (Score:2)
... but unless the law in question specifically says that it only protects US citizens, then it applies to everyone.
Even then, international treaties may force the issue. Do personality rights fall under copyrights? If so, The Berne Convention would forbid favourable treatment to US citizens over foreigners.
Re: (Score:1)
What's the difference between a tourist and a terrorist? A camera and the technicality who invades whose country.
Re: (Score:1)
Are we? Since when do rights only apply to US citizens? It's the usual assumption by Americans, that without US Citizenship[tm][c][r] you are essentially without rights wherever you are, but do tell where it actually says that in the law.
Activision is an US company acting in the US, so US laws certainly apply to Activition. Since it's Activision that's doing the depicting, it's not unreasonable for anyone they depicted, wherever they are, whichever citizenship they have, to call Activision on having infring
Re: (Score:2)
Many of the bill of rights reference "the people" and their rights being protected. If you look to the preamble you can find a clue to the definition of people.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At the very least, the people is a US centric term representing those who ordain and form the government of the United States. Therefore "the people" can be construed to mean voters.
Re:Questionable? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, since the US has said that US laws do apply to Noriega [bc.edu], even when the person and crime are not on US soil.
Since when has Justice become a bidirectional thing? Justice as practiced today is a pass-through function for the rich and connected to subject others to their judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she doesn't have a US Passport. Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.
Re: (Score:2)
But Noriega isn't a US citizen or even a resident. This means that his legal claim becomes questionable, because it's unclear on what legal basis he can actually bring a case against Activision.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
That's great news! The Beatles never got their US citizenship since they were convicted of drug possessions. Their IP and images are obviously up for grabs, since they were just a bunch of foreigners. What about the Queen of England, she isn't a US citizen. Am I right? Plus, she's so old, her copyright must have expired by now.
Emphasis mine. I think we're done here.
I hope Noriega wins. (Score:2, Troll)
As much as everyone has reason to hate Manuel Noriega, I want to see him win this, including punitive damages. Activision is that bad of a company.
Re:I hope Noriega wins. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep
> I want to see him win this, including punitive damages. Activision is that bad of a company.
That's a poor reason to want someone to win a lawsuit. If he wins it should be because his suit has merit.
Re: (Score:3)
Merit? Now since when has that mattered in lawsuits?
Re: (Score:2)
in this context does it matter he's still in jail for crimes against humanity for ever the money will do nothing for him, but it could hurt Activision.
Re:I hope Noriega wins. (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be amusing if the suit is thrown out under the Son of Sam law... (He wouldn't be a celebrity if not for his crimes).
Re: (Score:3)
actually imho that seems like the most reasonable outcome
Re: (Score:2)
They may say he's in jail for crimes against humanity, but what he's really in jail for is pissing off the US.
Re: (Score:3)
If he was suing EA I'd donate to his legal fund
Activision i don't hate so i hope he loses for no reason other than its a silly claim how is he losing money? lol prison laundry is not paying him the full wage he deserves?
Could you imagine if Hitler was still alive? he'd make a killing on law suits!
Re: (Score:3)
agreed
Did not know... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Probably Activision didn't either...
How the mighty have fallen (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
paid CIA assassins. FTFY.
Re: (Score:1)
Back in the '80s, Activision was one of his primary consumers of funny cigarettes.
Illegal to profit from your crimes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Doesn't that same law apply here?
Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (Score:4, Interesting)
Some jurisdictions do have Son of Sam laws [wikipedia.org] that are designed to keep criminals from profiting from their criminal pursuits, but from the Wikipedia entry, it sounds like they may be of questionable constitutionality (and that the court has been willing to throw them out), depending on how they are phrased and enforced.
Re:Illegal to profit from your crimes. (Score:4, Informative)
Doesn't the US have a law that makes it illegal for a criminal to profit from their crimes in this manner? I know serial killers can't sell their life story rights for a movie or a book.
Doesn't that same law apply here?
No, it doesn't. In this case, what he'd be getting paid for has nothing to do with his crimes whatsoever. This isn't about him having sold the rights to his life story, it's about a video game using his likeness and name in a fictitional manner without paying for the right to leverage his public image. Also, it can also be posited (debate whether it's valid or not) that some may believe that some components of the video game have a basis in real life, and thus it would be a form of libel as well. Though, speaking for myself, I'm not sure what about the game was so bad that it'd be worse than what the truth was.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem with that argument is that Noriega is a public historical figure. That's like saying every author ever has to get it cleared to use Reagan, Bush, Obama or Palin in some context in their stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Books are different than movies. You might be able to use someone's name and story if they are a public figure in a book but film is treated differently. The courts have basically said you need to pay someone to show them in movies (including even some cases where that applied to their likeness, this is the reason for disclaimers at the end of the movie that all the characters are fictional and not based on real people). This is similar to the reason in a lot of movies the bad guys are masked, the studios g
Re: (Score:2)
>The courts have basically said you need to pay someone to show them in movies
I don't recall hearing anything about George W Bush getting a paycheck from Oliver Stone's 2008 movie W:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/
Or for that matter, him being shown in Fahrenheit 9/11.
Nor do I recall the Mercury astronauts getting any compensation for their being portrayed in The Right Stuff, or Apollo 13's astronauts for the movie of the same name. Or Patton for Patton, etc. etc.
Settlement Offer (Score:1)
Here is your settlement, one copy of Black Ops 2.
We did a study and found out that no one has ever heard of you, because no one played single player.
Good thing we didn't include it in multiplayer, or you might have a valid case.
Re: (Score:1)
oddly, i can believe that of the COD playerbase.
i just want COD to suffer... the FPS genre has followed them so far down it feels like they're the Rock, and we're his bottom.
Re:double law standards (Score:5, Insightful)
He's in prison under Panamanian law. Sure, we helped put him there (and profited from his crimes before that became unfashionable and he became less willing to be controlled) but he's in prison for violating Panamanian law and was put there by the Panamanian judiciary.
His lawyers are on retainer still... (Score:2)
That's always worked in the past with U.S. deal makers...
Turnabout (Score:2)
This is a great ruling. Panamanian companies can release games with characters based on Jennifer Aniston, OJ Simpson, Barack Obama and Rush Limbaugh, without legal consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
I would. I could see a cool rail shooter featuring them.
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it very strange if I wouldn't have the same standing to sue anyone abusing my likeness in a US court for violation of US law in US jurisdiction as anyone else. For example, if you slander me in a US newspaper why shouldn't I have standing to sue you? If those laws didn't apply to literally everyone, any foreigner would be totally without the protection of the law in every country but their own and there's plenty crimes that can be conducted remotely.
Re: (Score:2)
Trey Parker and Matt Stone could be liable... (Score:2)
If Noriega prevails, Trey Parker and Matt Stone wuld likely owe damanges to the estate of Kim Jong Il, for their unflattering depiction of him in Team America: World Police.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say Trey and Matt would have lines that rival Apple fans lining up for new iStuff of people ready to sue them. But I think in their case parody and satire protects them where Activision is going for gritty and realistic.
But IANAL and all that. I really don't know what to think here; Noriega is scum but laws should apply equally to all, regardless of how much of a dick they are. I know I wouldn't want people profiting off my depiction without my permission. Lucky me, I'm a nobody and don't really have to
Re: (Score:3)
Oops. Was actually going for "don't really have to worry about [it]"
Have you seen Weird Al's Word Crimes? It's hilarious. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think North Korea wants to abrogate sovereign power and put themselves under the jurisdiction of a US court, even if it's a civil trial. Most countries go out of their way to avoid giving jurisdiction to foreign courts by filing court cases in those courts.
Sorry: public figure (Score:2)
If I'm Activision, I'm claiming that this is Constitutionally protected political speech. If you're the public figure in charge of a country, I feel you lose the right to control how you're depicted in media.
No endorsement implied. Jim Brown v EA, Tiger Wood (Score:5, Informative)
This has come up before in similar cases and the celebrity loses unless their image is used in a way that misleads consumers by implying endorsement of the product.
For a video game example, see James "Jim" Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc. Also, Tiger Woods' agent sued regard a painting featuring the golfer, and lost, in ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publishing. Alyssa Milano's mom, Lin Milano, contacted us about her daughter's "right of publicity" 20 years ago and we found we could tell her to take a hike.
Absent defamation, the celebrity's name and image is protected in a way very similar to a trademark. (In common law jurisdictions, almost _exactly_ like a trademark). You can't sell "Britney Spears" brand headphones without permission, because that would imply that the singer endorses the product, misleading consumers. You CAN sell a comic book titled "Britney Spears is a stupid slut" because nobody will think Ms. Spears endorsed that.
Of course there can be other causes of action if someone does something else bad and also happens to be using a celebrity's image as well, but it usually comes down to implied endorsement. Laws do vary from one state to another.
Perhaps he should (Score:2)
Troll (Score:1)